Discussion Title: Should fracking be banned?

1. Fracking should be banned.
1.1. Pro: Fracking poses substantial risks to its surrounding region.
1.1.1. Pro: Spills are common and can harm the soil and surrounding vegetation.
1.1.1.1. Pro: Up to [16% of hydraulically fractured oil and gas wells spills](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39032748) liquids every year in the United States.
1.1.1.2. Con: The causes of these spills aren't due to fracking but instead human error with [equipment failure and the loading and unloading of trucks with materials](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39032748).
1.1.1.3. Con: The vast majority of spills are contained incidents and [never reached land or water.](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39032748)
1.1.2. Pro: Fracking has negative effects on general water supply and water quality in the area.
1.1.2.1. Pro: Aging pipelines pose [risks](http://blogs.denverpost.com/thebalancesheet/2012/11/14/aging-pipelines-hurdles-growth-natural-gas/7265/) as they deteriorate.
1.1.2.1.1. Pro: In the [US](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-13/fragile-pipelines-pose-an-increasing-risk-in-gas-hungry-u-s) there is an estimated 80,000 miles of gas pipelines built in the early 1900's.
1.1.2.1.2. Pro: In [2010](https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/PAR1201.aspx) a pipeline in Michigan ruptured, pumping approximately 850,000 gallons of oil into the nearby rivers and wetlands.
1.1.2.1.3. Con: These pipelines are used to [convey all oil and gas](http://pstrust.org/about-pipelines/beginners/) across regions, not just the oil and gas created by fracking.
1.1.2.1.4. Pro: In contrast, renewable energy does not currently use pipelines.
1.1.2.1.4.1. Pro: Solar panels produce [DC current electricity](https://sciencing.com/solar-photovoltaic-electricity-transported-6297475.html) which is passed through power lines which is stored in a battery array system.
1.1.2.1.4.2. Pro: Wind turbines create electrical power which travels to a transmission substation and passed through the [power line network](https://sciencing.com/electricity-move-wind-turbine-businesses-communities-buy-it-21904.html).
1.1.2.1.5. Con: The [Northern Gas Network](https://www.northerngasnetworks.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Replacement-leaflet.pdf) is currently in the process of replacing large portions of its 37,000km of old pipelines in Northern England.
1.1.2.1.6. Pro: Of course they do. as do unmaintained Electricity grids
1.1.2.2. Pro: [Millions of gallons of water](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011915/what-are-effects-fracking-environment.asp) are used in the fracking process, which directly reduces the amount of clean water available to residents in the surrounding areas.
1.1.2.3. Pro: Contaminant can occur due to fracking. Between [20% and 40% of the water](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/011915/what-are-effects-fracking-environment.asp) used for fracking, which is then returned to the ground surface consists of toxic contaminants.
1.1.2.3.1. Con: [MIT published a report](http://energy.mit.edu/research/future-natural-gas/) concluding that only a handful of more than 20,000 wells drilled in the past 10 years have led to groundwater contamination.
1.1.2.3.2. Pro: [Traces of arsenic](http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es4011724) have been found in groundwater near fracking wells.
1.1.2.3.2.1. Pro: [Arsenic](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/02/23/fracking-is-dangerous-to-your-health-heres-why/#58056f65945f) was found in the private well of a woman living near a fracking site. The source was traced back to the fracking site.
1.1.2.3.2.1.1. Pro: Exposure to [arsenic-contaminated water](https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2017-0008/reveh-2017-0008.xml?format=INT) has been linked with neurodevelopmental impairments in memory, attention and intelligence testing in children in Taiwan, Mexico, India and Bangladesh
1.1.2.3.2.1.2. Pro: Arsenic exposure in pregnant mice has been shown to cause [spontaneous abortion](https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.2014.29.issue-4/reveh-2014-0057/reveh-2014-0057.xml).
1.1.2.4. Pro: Fracking wastewater is [extremely difficult to dispose of](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/great-energy-challenge/2013/fracking-water-its-just-so-hard-to-clean/), and methods are not perfect. Disposal hazards include spills, leaks, and inadequately treated water.
1.1.2.4.1. Pro: During the fracking process [waterways can become polluted](https://fracfocus.org/water-protection/hydraulic-fracturing-usage) if fractures connect to underground aquifers or if waste water is not properly disposed of.
1.1.2.4.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.3.2.
1.1.2.4.2. Con: The Canadian company GasFrac has [developed a fracking technique](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/03/140319-5-technologies-for-greener-fracking/) which does not use water but instead uses a propane based gel. This mitigates the large water demands of fracking and also eliminates the need to dispose of contaminated waste water as the gel can safely remain in the ground long-term.
1.1.3. Con: Green energy can also harm the region.
1.1.3.1. Pro: Alternatives, such as wind turbines also [damage wildlife habitat and forests irreversibly](https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbradley/2017/04/13/ban-fracking-bad-economics-bad-ecology/#94513583b3f5).
1.1.3.2. Pro: The process for making solar panels involves the [use of toxic chemicals](https://sciencing.com/negative-effects-solar-energy-6325659.html) such as hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid and nitric acid. If these chemicals are not properly disposed of \(including disposing of defunct paneling\) they can cause environmental damage and health risks.
1.1.3.3. Pro: Hydroelectric power plants can greatly affect local fish populations by disrupting [migration routes](http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/Y2785E/y2785e03.htm).
1.1.3.4. Pro: Hydroelectric dams can be extremely harmful to the local ecosystems and wildlife.
1.1.3.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.3.3.
1.1.3.4.2. Pro: [Mercury](https://wildlifeleadershipacademy.org/the-hydroelectric-dam-a-river-ecosystems-worst-enemy/) can collect in the dam water poisoning fish and changing the chemical composition of the local waterways.
1.1.3.4.3. Pro: Creating a hydroelectric dam includes flooding a reservoir which takes up a large portion of land [displacing](https://phys.org/news/2018-03-hydropower-impacts.html) local wildlife and communities.
1.1.3.4.4. Pro: The turbines in hydroelectric dams can [kill or maim fish](https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/underestimating-turbines-death-toll/).
1.1.3.5. Pro: Solar panels can [damage surrounding soil and plants](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/solar-power-parks-impact-environment-soil-plants-climate).
1.1.4. Con: There is [no record of fracking causing pollution or damage](https://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2012/05/21/fracking-is-midunderstood-its-the-key-to-energy-self-sufficiency/#12bb6fcb177d) in places such as Canada which have been using fracking techniques for the past 35 years.
1.1.4.1. Con: There have been reports of damage and pollution caused by fracking being [concealed](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/03/us/pennsylvania-omitted-poison-data-in-water-report.html).
1.1.5. Pro: Private companies are only motivated by [profit margins](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/profit-motive.asp). This means they are likely to spend as little money as possible on health and safety improvements.
1.1.5.1. Pro: Yes, almost by definition. Therefore the Common Good requires Government intervention to impose strict safety and health regulations.
1.1.6. Pro: Fracking has been linked to earthquakes.
1.1.6.1. Con: The link between fracking and the rise in earthquakes is unclear. Scientists propose that it is [wastewater injection wells, and not fracking itself that is responsible for earthquakes.](https://dailycaller.com/2015/05/06/scientists-fracking-is-not-causing-earthquakes/)
1.1.6.1.1. Pro: The U.S. Geological survey has noted that fracking does [not appear to be linked to the increased rate of magnitude 3 and larger earthquakes](https://dailycaller.com/2015/05/06/scientists-fracking-is-not-causing-earthquakes/).
1.1.6.1.2. Pro: Companies such as the EPA are [increasingly regulating and reducing](https://dailycaller.com/2015/05/06/scientists-fracking-is-not-causing-earthquakes/) the practice of wastewater injections.
1.1.6.2. Pro: Fracking [destabilizes](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/10/fracking-earthquakes-oklahoma-colorado-gas-companies) the bedrock.
1.1.6.2.1. Pro: Fracking drilling weakens underground rock formations.
1.1.6.3. Pro: In [Lancashire](https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/26/fracking-halted-again-in-lancashire-after-17th-earthquake-in-9-days-8078374/), UK, fracking was stopped after there were 17 earthquakes in 9 days.
1.1.6.4. Pro: A [county in western China](https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2019-02-25/china-county-suspends-fracking-after-earthquakes-kill-2) has suspended drilling for shale gas after a protest by residents who suspected fracking work caused a series of earthquakes that led to two deaths.
1.1.7. Pro: Despite there having been no spills or major earthquakes in the UK a ban has now been [imposed](https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/government-disappointed-by-fracking-suspension-as-campaigners-push-for-permanent-ban/ar-AAJJ6yq?ocid=spartanntp) on the basis of risk-data acquired during trials.
1.2. Pro: Given that renewable sources of energy are available, it is wrong to use non-renewables.
1.2.1. Con: Renewable energy will [never be capable](https://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2012/05/21/fracking-is-midunderstood-its-the-key-to-energy-self-sufficiency/#12bb6fcb177d) of completely supporting our energy needs the way that fracking can.
1.2.1.1. Pro: Due to fracking however, the United States now has enough oil and gas to [potentially meet its need for energy](https://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2012/05/21/fracking-is-midunderstood-its-the-key-to-energy-self-sufficiency/#12bb6fcb177d).
1.2.1.2. Pro: Pure dependency on renewable energies is [not a viable](https://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesignArticles/ArticleID/6289/Can-We-Live-on-Sustainable-Energy-Alone.aspx) option given its current technological state - a hybrid set-up is necessary.
1.2.1.3. Con: [Nuclear Fusion](https://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power/nuclear-fusion/) is proven scientifically but is [not yet a viable technology](https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/nuclear-fusion-what-s-taking-so-long-1329056). If that step-change could be achieved then it could completely support our energy needs.
1.2.1.4. Pro: As renewable energy depends on climatic conditions, they are [inherently unreliable](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/08/we-dont-need-solar-and-wind-to-save-the-climate-and-its-a-good-thing-too/#60485cd7e4de) as sources of energy.
1.2.1.4.1. Con: Construction of a [global power grid](https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/lets-build-a-global-power-grid) to fix issues based on regional climates.
1.2.1.5. Pro: Solar power has a [low energy density](https://www.science20.com/science_20/energy_density_why_gasoline_here_stay-91403), making it [far less efficient](https://www.theperspective.com/debates/living/depend-fossil-fuels-renewable-energy/) as an energy source than oil.
1.2.1.6. Pro: Despite the falling costs and [wide scale government subsidises](https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a28339149/where-michelle-carter-is-now-jail-i-love-you-now-die-true-story/) by many countries, wind and solar only produce [5.5%](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2017/07/13/can-the-world-thrive-on-100-renewable-energy) of the world’s electricity.
1.2.1.7. Con: This is not universally true, as places such as [Scotland](https://brightvibes.com/1377/en/scotland-just-produced-enough-wind-energy-to-power-all-its-households-twice-over?fbclid=IwAR2g1vpHm6-12gl_IVecIaqwTluZq1l5JUKPAx2ro0HfVM_cTGdhilPS-nY) and [Puerto Rico](https://www.vox.com/2019/4/17/18306417/puerto-rico-renewable-energy-natural-gas) are moving towards complete reliance on renewable energy.
1.2.2. Pro: Fracking is a short term solution with unclear ecological effects. It would be better to invest in renewable energy where the future is much longer and downsides are negligible.
1.2.2.1. Con: -> See 1.1.3.1.
1.2.2.2. Pro: Fracking increases the use of oil as an energy source, which contributes to [global warming](https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/issues/fracking/).
1.2.3. Con: Gas obtained from fracking can be a ['bridge' or 'transition' fuel to more renewable energy](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/gas-boom-from-unrestrained-fracking-linked-to-emissions-rise) as it emits significantly less CO2 than coal when burned.
1.2.3.1. Pro: Fracking can offer individuals the opportunity to have energy with low levels of carbon dioxide [until preferable alternatives such as renewable and nuclear energy sources becomes more accessible.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/11/shale-gas-unlikely-to-make-the-uk-energy-self-sufficient-report-says)
1.2.3.2. Con: Dependence on gas obtained from fracking [disincentives the shift to renewable energy](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/gas-boom-from-unrestrained-fracking-linked-to-emissions-rise), as its seen as a cheaper and clearer alternative already.
1.2.3.2.1. Pro: When gas is cheaper, people end up [using more energy and are less encouraged to take necessary energy efficiency measures.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/gas-boom-from-unrestrained-fracking-linked-to-emissions-rise)
1.2.3.3. Con: This is an insufficient measure to take in order to tackle global warming. [Only radical actions such as a global price on carbon pollution and climate change deals will help combat climate change](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/gas-boom-from-unrestrained-fracking-linked-to-emissions-rise).
1.2.4. Con: Sources of renewable energy can have negative effects on the surrounding communities and environment.
1.2.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.3.1.
1.2.4.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.3.
1.2.4.3. Pro: The presence of wind turbines near residential properties can [reduce house prices by up to 12%](https://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/08/windfarms-reduce-house-prices-compensation).
1.2.4.4. Pro: The sound caused by wind turbines can [cause sleep deprivation and mental health problems](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/7085086/Wind-farms-can-cause-noise-problems-finds-study.html) for people living nearby.
1.2.4.4.1. Con: Most [experts](https://www.iflscience.com/environment/real-science-wind-farms-noise-infrasound-and-health/) agree that the noise created by wind turbines is too low for most people to hear and would only cause health problems for a very limited group of people.
1.2.4.5. Pro: -> See 1.1.3.2.
1.2.4.6. Pro: Solar panels are made out of [quartz and metal ores](https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html) which have to be mined, a process which can have devastating environmental and health impacts.
1.2.4.7. Pro: -> See 1.1.3.3.
1.2.4.8. Pro: -> See 1.1.3.4.
1.2.5. Pro: It is immoral to use non-renewable energy sources.
1.2.5.1. Pro: Climate change, caused in part by non-renewable energy sources, is causing natural disasters such as [flooding and hurricanes.](https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/climate-change-affects-poverty)
1.2.5.2. Pro: Climate change is changing the habitats of animals, threatening their [livelihood](https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/effects-of-climate-change).
1.2.5.3. Con: Due to the high costs of renewable energy, it cannot be said to be immoral for individuals to choose to use non-renewable energy sources. They require energy for basic necessities such as healthcare.
1.2.5.3.1. Con: An action can still be immoral if the person who acts has no alternative; it’s just immoral but necessary.
1.2.6. Pro: If unrestricted, the gas boom generated by fracking could [increase the use of fuel by 170%](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/gas-boom-from-unrestrained-fracking-linked-to-emissions-rise), which will [increase CO2 emissions by 9%](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/gas-boom-from-unrestrained-fracking-linked-to-emissions-rise), harming the planet further.
1.2.6.1. Con: Quote from the same Guardian article '“We were surprised how little difference abundant gas made to total greenhouse gas emissions, even though it was dramatically changing the global energy system,” and “All five modelling teams reported little difference in climate change.” ..' So the effect is 'little' or perhaps '''Regardless of this rise, studies show that the increase in abundant gases has little difference on the effects on climate change by total greenhouse gas emissions overall.''
1.2.7. Pro: We should avoid any way of using 'legacy' resources \(fossil fuels\) for energy. Those materials are more useful as chemicals: for lubrication, 3D printing, manufacturing, healthcare etc. These 'legacy' products are non-renewable and their availability is finite.
1.2.8. Con: Unfortunately, renewable energy is [very expensive](https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2014/01/05/why-is-renewable-energy-so-expensive?) and inefficient.
1.2.8.1. Pro: Solar power is more than [three times as expensive](http://www.renewable-energysources.com/) as natural gas.
1.2.8.2. Pro: Most [commercial wind turbines](http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost) cost between $3 million and $4 million dollars each.
1.2.8.2.1. Pro: [Coal mining](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=coal_prices), in comparison is much cheaper at $93 per tonne of anthracite coal, even if [carbon taxes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#Regional_and_historical_studies) make coal energy per MWh more expensive than wind energy.
1.2.8.3. Con: Contemporary [research](https://www.naturespath.com/en-ca/blog/cost-renewable-energy-versus-fossil-fuels/) suggests that renewable energy is more cost-efficient in the long-run than non-renewable energy.
1.2.8.4. Con: Renewable energy does not need to be as [efficient](https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/11/08/is-solar-energy-less-efficient-than-non-renewables/#60223a0f4d4a) as non-renewable sources as it utilizes free, easily replenished resources.
1.2.9. Con: -> See discussion #6182: Nuclear power \([fission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission)\) is desirable for sustainable energy production
1.2.10. Pro: Sustainable forms of energy, such as wind, solar, hydro-electric and geothermal generation are entirely renewable, viable and environmentally responsible forms of energy that are far more limited in their environmental damage.
1.2.10.1. Pro: The [majority of domestic energy in Canada](https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/facts/electricity/20068) is Hydro Electric with 59% be produced by it, indicating that it is a viable primary source of energy.
1.2.10.2. Pro: Germany generates [nearly 30%](https://1-stromvergleich.com/strom-report/renewable-energy-germany/#germany-power-generation-mix-2016) of the country's power through renewable sources.
1.3. Pro: Fracking is bad for the environment.
1.3.1. Pro: Fracking contributes to global warming.
1.3.1.1. Con: Fracking is [displacing](http://theweek.com/articles/619832/swift-demise-big-coal) the use of coal energy, which produces [twice as much](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11) carbon dioxide as natural gas.
1.3.1.1.1. Pro: In 2016, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions were at their lowest levels since the early 1990s with [experts](https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/372402-fracking-may-come-with-risks-but-it-can-benefit-the-economy-and) citing the displacement of coal as the primary cause.
1.3.1.1.1.1. Con: A report complied for the Business Council for Sustainable Energy \(BCSE\) has stated that this fall in carbon dioxide emissions is due to the displacement of coal via [new energy-saving technologies and a doubling in the take-up of renewable energy](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/01/us-carbon-emissions-lowest-levels), not fracking.
1.3.1.1.2. Con: The switch from coal to gas only decreases carbon dioxide emissions if the coal stays in the ground. Instead the United States has [started exporting its coal abroad, whilst domestically depending on natural gas from fracking](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/03/130315-us-coal-exports/).
1.3.1.1.2.1. Pro: In 2012, the U.S. Energy Information Administration \(EIA\) released research showing that the United States' coal exports [hit a record 126 million short tons](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/03/130315-us-coal-exports/).
1.3.1.1.2.2. Pro: Whilst domestic consumption fell by [11% in 2012](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/03/130315-us-coal-exports/), overall U.S. coal production fell by [just 7%](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/03/130315-us-coal-exports/).
1.3.1.1.2.3. Pro: In 2012, [U.S. coal exports to China doubled](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/03/130315-us-coal-exports/) and Europe importing [more U.S. coal than all other countries combined.](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/03/130315-us-coal-exports/)
1.3.1.1.2.4. Pro: The burning of all that exported coal could [erase half the gains the United States has made](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/03/130315-us-coal-exports/) in reducing carbon emissions
1.3.1.1.3. Con: Methane is released during the fracking process which is [30x more harmful](https://blogs.princeton.edu/research/2014/03/26/a-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-than-co2-methane-emissions-will-leap-as-earth-warms-nature/) to the environment than carbon dioxide.
1.3.1.1.4. Con: Renewable resources, with even less carbon dioxide emissions, also displaces the use of coal energy.
1.3.1.2. Pro: Studies have found that leaks from drilling operations, even at the lower end of current estimates, [can significantly drive climate change.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/15/gas-boom-from-unrestrained-fracking-linked-to-emissions-rise)
1.3.1.3. Pro: Methane, the most harmful greenhouse gas, is released into the atmosphere in large quantities by fracking.
1.3.1.3.1. Pro: Methane leaks are as [high as 6-12%](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50811/abstract). Given that any leakages [over 3.2%](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/04/09/460384/natural-gas-is-a-bridge-to-nowhere-absent-a-carbon-price-and-strong-standards-to-reduce-methane-leakage/) indicate that gas is worse for the climate than coal, fracking is not a viable alternative to other fossil fuels.
1.3.1.3.2. Con: Methane capture equipment can reduce emissions from fracking by [up to 99%](https://www.climatechangenews.com/2013/09/17/methane-capture-equipment-can-cut-fracking-emissions-by-99/).
1.3.1.3.2.1. Pro: In 2012 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency introduced [regulations](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/great-energy-challenge/2012/air-pollution-from-fracked-natural-gas-wells-will-be-regulated-under-new-u-s-rules/) requiring companies to capture the gases created by fracking rather than burning them off or releasing them into the air.
1.3.1.3.3. Con: [Methane is less harmful than carbon dioxide](http://www.planetexperts.com/greenhouse-gas-worse-methane-carbon-dioxide/) since it dissipates faster, so even though it captures more heat it exists for a very brief time according to the website
1.3.2. Con: Advances in fracking technology are making fracking more environmentally friendly.
1.3.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.4.2.
1.3.2.2. Pro: In 2013, US fracking company [Apache began using natural gas](http://www.apachecorp.com/News/Articles/View_Article.aspx?Article.ItemID=2957) to power hydraulic fracturing equipment. This significantly reduces the environmental impact of the fracking process itself which conventionally uses diesel to power the equipment.
1.3.2.3. Pro: In an effort to reduce the use of diesel fuels, US company Halliburton has produced the ["Sandcastle"](https://www.halliburton.com/content/dam/ps/public/pe/contents/Data_Sheets/web/H/H08478.pdf) storage silo which is powered using solar panels.
1.3.2.4. Pro: In 2011 US company Halliburton developed the ["CleanWave"](https://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/otc-2011-halliburtons-cleanwave%E2%84%A2-receives-spotlight-on-new-technology-award/) system which enables waste water to be reused as fracking fluid or in other production processes. [Other companies have since developed similar technologies.](https://www.originclear.com/company-news/california-startups-team-up-to-challenge-halliburtons-costs-for-cleaning-produced-water-and-frack-water) This significantly reduces the demand for fresh water for use in fracking.
1.3.2.5. Con: New green technologies for fracking are not always widely adopted as they can be expensive.
1.3.2.5.1. Pro: Extracting natural gas with water-free fracking could cost [up to 25% more](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/03/140319-5-technologies-for-greener-fracking/) than conventional fracking methods. This is largely because currently companies can use fresh water for free.
1.3.2.5.2. Pro: Companies may not be willing to finance new technology which often requires a [large up-front capital expenditure](https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/going-green-why-dont-we-all-do-it) and the savings are not realized immediately but over time.
1.3.3. Pro: Fracking threatens animals and plants in the local area.
1.3.3.1. Pro: [Research](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/alberta-research-shows-fracking-fluids-have-detrimental-effects-on-fish/article33749888/) has found that the chemicals used in fracking can be toxic to fish, even at very low concentrations.
1.3.3.2. Pro: In the US, a [study](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/is-fracking-a-mortal-threat-to-our-livestock-8822745.html) found reproductive, gastrointestinal and neurological problems in livestock after exposure to fracking chemicals either in the air or in water.
1.3.3.3. Pro: Fracking can cause [an increase in the soil acidity](https://www.thatsfarming.com/news/fracking-and-farming) of the surrounding areas which disrupts the growth of plants and crops.
1.3.3.4. Pro: [Sensitive bird species and other wildlife can be affected by drilling noise, truck trips and other effects from gas drilling pads.](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/california_fracking/wildlife.html)
1.3.3.4.1. Con: We already produce noise, cities produce more. Road traffic is one of the [main sources](https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/road-traffic-remains-biggest-source) of noise. Using your reasoning we should also stop using cars, trains, and planes.
1.3.3.5. Pro: [A single drilling station can affect 30 acres of forest](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/california_fracking/wildlife.html) which is home to wildlife.
1.3.3.6. Pro: The diversity of species in streams close to fracking activity in Pennsylvania was [found to be reduced](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/california_fracking/wildlife.html), even though drilling was done in accordance with all current state rules.
1.3.3.7. Pro: [California](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/california_fracking/wildlife.html) is home to about 100 plants and animals that are endangered, expansion of fracking could signal the end for these species.
1.3.3.8. Con: It is hypocritical for us to benefit from the environmental degradation of foreign countries whilst insisting that our own areas of natural beauty remain pristine.
1.3.3.8.1. Con: It is logical for us to prioritize our well-being, even if it comes at the cost of other countries.
1.3.4. Con: -> See 1.2.4.
1.3.5. Pro: Fracking uses and pollutes a large amount of water.
1.3.5.1. Con: -> See 1.1.2.3.1.
1.3.5.2. Pro: As fracking is such a [water intensive process](https://fracfocus.org/water-protection/hydraulic-fracturing-usage), it may create water shortages.
1.3.5.2.1. Pro: [30%](https://phys.org/news/2018-06-impacts-fracking-worldwide.html) of the world's shale deposits \(potential fracking sites\) are located in barren areas where demands on water sources for use in agriculture are already high.
1.3.5.3. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.4.1.
1.3.6. Pro: -> See 1.1.6.2.
1.3.7. Con: -> See 1.3.1.1.
1.3.8. Con: All use of legacy, 'fossil' , fuels is bad for the environment but the extractive process of fracking need be no worse than others given close regulation . [oesg.org.uk](https://oesg.org.uk/fracking-at-home-and-abroad-compare-and-contrast/)
1.4. Pro: Fracking is known to cause health problems in the areas surrounding the drill sites.
1.4.1. Pro: Those who live near fracking sites have a higher chance of being [hospitalised](https://www.marketplace.org/2017/11/15/sustainability/environmental-protection-agency-drilling-fracking-wells) with cardiac, neurological, urological, cancer-related and skin-related problems.
1.4.1.1. Pro: [Carcinogenic chemicals](https://www.marketplace.org/2017/11/15/sustainability/environmental-protection-agency-drilling-fracking-wells) such as benzene and formaldehyde have been found at fracking sites.
1.4.1.2. Pro: Fracking has been shown to contaminate drinking water, with [dangerous substances](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/02/23/fracking-is-dangerous-to-your-health-heres-why/#58056f65945f).
1.4.1.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.3.2.1.
1.4.1.2.2. Pro: Chemical spills are a frequent occurrence in fracking, many of these [spills contaminate groundwater.](https://snappartnership.net/groups/hydraulic-fracturing/webapp/spills_materials.html)
1.4.1.2.3. Con: In order to counter this, [legislation](https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/hydrofracking_w.html) can be put in place, such as repealing oil and gas exemptions from the [Safe Drinking Water Act.](https://www.epa.gov/sdwa)
1.4.1.2.3.1. Pro: [Under this legislation](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/02/17/fracking-and-what-new-epa-means-for-your-health/#4bacb2c338e1), companies do not have to declare what chemicals they are using in fracking.
1.4.1.2.3.1.1. Con: The US Ground Water Protection Council and US Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission has developed "[Fracfocus](http://fracfocus.org/welcome)", a national hydraulic fracturing chemical registry where companies can voluntarily disclose what chemicals they use.
1.4.1.2.3.1.1.1. Con: Fracfocus has previously been [criticised](https://www.prairiebusinessmagazine.com/business/energy-and-mining/3966132-fracfocus-site-criticized-harvard-report) for being ineffective and flawed.
1.4.1.2.3.1.1.2. Con: Even with Fracfocus, companies are still entitled to hide what dangerous chemicals they use if they see fit to do so.
1.4.1.2.3.1.2. Pro: Forcing fracking companies to be transparent would allow us to write [better policy.](https://www.ucsusa.org/center-science-and-democracy/bringing-science-critical-issues/fracking-science-policy-people#bf-toc-3)
1.4.1.2.4. Pro: [Manganese has been found in flowback water from fracking operations, and in drinking water near UOG sites at levels known to be hazardous to human health.](https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2017-0008/reveh-2017-0008.xml?format=INT)
1.4.1.2.4.1. Pro: [Neurodevelopmental issues](https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2017-0008/reveh-2017-0008.xml?format=INT) have been found in children exposed to manganese.
1.4.1.2.5. Pro: Since 2004, over [4100 drinking water complaints](http://publicherald.org/to-hell-with-us-records-of-misconduct-found-inside-pa-drinking-water-investigations/) related to oil and gas operations have been reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection \(DEP\).
1.4.1.2.5.1. Con: The DEP determined that [93%](http://publicherald.org/to-hell-with-us-records-of-misconduct-found-inside-pa-drinking-water-investigations/) of these complaints are not related to oil and gas activity.
1.4.1.2.5.1.1. Con: The DEP has been shown to [not investigate many of these complaints properly](http://publicherald.org/to-hell-with-us-records-of-misconduct-found-inside-pa-drinking-water-investigations/), including not taking appropriate water samples.
1.4.1.3. Pro: [Exposure to manganese](https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2017-0008/reveh-2017-0008.xml?format=INT) has been shown to induce non-spatial and spatial memory deficits in humans and in non-human primates.
1.4.1.4. Pro: Increased [levels of radon](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/02/17/fracking-and-what-new-epa-means-for-your-health/#4bacb2c338e1) are found near fracking sites; radon is the second largest cause of lung cancer in the USA.
1.4.2. Con: There are [substances](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/25/pollutants-from-fracking-could-pose-health-risk-to-children-warn-researchers) that can be used in fracking that do not have the harmful effects of the more common chemicals.
1.4.3. Pro: Living in proximity to fracking sites leads to exposure to [noise, causing stress and sleep deprivation](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/02/23/fracking-is-dangerous-to-your-health-heres-why/#58056f65945f).
1.4.3.1. Pro: Studies have found that the noise from fracking equipment is sufficient to [disturb sleep, cause stress and increase high blood pressure.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969716325724)
1.4.3.1.1. Pro: Lack of sleep is hugely detrimental to people and society.
1.4.3.1.1.1. Pro: Long term loss of sleep is associated with [hypertension, diabetes, obesity, depression, heart attack, and stroke.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19961/)
1.4.3.1.1.2. Pro: Sleep disorders and deprivation is strongly linked to [car accidents](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19961/).
1.4.3.1.1.3. Pro: Lack of sleep is linked to[depression and other mental health conditions](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19961/) such as anxiety.
1.4.3.1.1.4. Pro: There is a link between lack of [sleep and increased alcohol consumption.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19961/)
1.4.4. Pro: Fracking has hugely negative impacts on [foetuses](https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/13/16771444/fracking-pregnancy-health-environment-pollution) and children.
1.4.4.1. Pro: Chemicals and pollutants released during fracking are thought to be very harmful to growing children and infants.
1.4.4.1.1. Pro: Chemicals released during fracking can act as [endocrine disruptors](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/health-costs-hormone-disrupting-chemicals-150bn-a-year-europe-says-study), impacting the normal production of hormones within the body.
1.4.4.1.1.1. Pro: In growing children and infants, a lack of hormones such as[thyroid hormone](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/06/health-costs-hormone-disrupting-chemicals-150bn-a-year-europe-says-study) is associated with development delays and educational difficulties.
1.4.4.1.1.2. Pro: In growing male children, [disruption of testosterone](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/02/toiletries-health-impact-could-cost-millions-report-says) production, has been like to conditions such as autism, [cryptorchidism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptorchidism) and infertility.
1.4.4.1.2. Pro: The developing brains and nervous systems of children are very sensitive to chemicals and pollutants, it is reasonable to assume that frequent exposure to these chemical could lead to the development of [neurological issues.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/25/pollutants-from-fracking-could-pose-health-risk-to-children-warn-researchers)
1.4.4.1.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.3.2.1.1.
1.4.4.2. Pro: Infants of mothers living close to fracking wells during their pregnancy are [more likely](http://time.com/5062700/fracking-health-effects/) to experience negative health effects.
1.4.4.2.1. Pro: Fracking chemicals are harmful to pregnant women and their developing babies and there chemicals can be [dangerous even when present at very low concentrations.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/02/23/fracking-is-dangerous-to-your-health-heres-why/#4710cf6e5945)
1.4.4.2.2. Pro: Studies have shown that women with newborns who lived near fracking sites have a [40% increased chance of having a premature baby](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26426945) and a [30% risk of having the pregnancy be classified as “high-risk”](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26426945)
1.4.4.2.2.1. Pro: Premature babies counted for [35% of infant deaths](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/02/23/fracking-is-dangerous-to-your-health-heres-why/#58056f65945f) in American in 2010.
1.4.4.2.3. Pro: A group of mothers who lived closest to a high density of fracking wells in Pennsylvania were [34%](https://www.marketplace.org/2017/11/15/sustainability/environmental-protection-agency-drilling-fracking-wells) more likely to give birth to infants who were small for their gestational age
1.4.4.2.4. Pro: [Maternal benzene exposure](https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2017-0008/reveh-2017-0008.xml?format=INT) has been shown to cause neural tube defects, such as spina bifida.
1.4.4.2.5. Pro: Children exposed to toluene in utero have been reported to be born with [small head circumference, serious facial deformations, and general growth retardations.](https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2017-0008/reveh-2017-0008.xml?format=INT)
1.4.4.2.6. Pro: Children with prenatal exposure to [poly aromatic hydrocarbons](https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2017-0008/reveh-2017-0008.xml?format=INT) had persistent problems with self-regulation, as evidenced through a variety of domains such as managing attention, aggression, anxiety/depression, as well as the ability to get along with others
1.4.4.2.6.1. Pro: Children with this PAH pre-natal exposure are more likely to be diagnosed with conditions such as [ADHD](https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2017-0008/reveh-2017-0008.xml?format=INT).
1.4.4.2.7. Con: The study is from Pennsylvania only. So, the claim is correct, but we should note that regulation of fracking varies by state in the US and, in any case, [is very different elsewehere](https://oesg.org.uk/fracking-at-home-and-abroad-compare-and-contrast/) \(e.g. UK\).
1.4.4.3. Pro: [Toxic chemicals](https://sciencediscoveries.degruyter.com/toxic-chemicals-used-in-fracking-shown-to-cause-miscarriage-birth-defects-and-infant-mortality/) used in fracking have been linked to increased rates of [miscarriage](https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.2014.29.issue-4/reveh-2014-0057/reveh-2014-0057.xml).
1.4.5. Pro: -> See 1.4.4.2.
1.4.6. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.
1.4.7. Con: Many jobs have health risks, but it would be imprudent to ban associated operations \(see chart 3 of the [2017 Survey of Occupational Injuries & Illnesses](https://www.bls.gov/iif/osch0062.pdf) and chart 14 of the [2017 Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries](https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cfch0016.pdf)\).
1.4.7.1. Con: The difference with jobs is that people opt into them, and therefore take a risk. Those who are affected by fracking sites may not have consented to be at risk from them.
1.4.8. Pro: [Pollution](https://www.marketplace.org/2017/11/15/sustainability/environmental-protection-agency-drilling-fracking-wells) near fracking sites is likely to cause health issues for people in the future.
1.4.8.1. Pro: Fracking releases chemicals that can [cause asthma and general respiratory problems](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4016083/)
1.4.8.1.1. Pro: Cough, shortness of breath and wheezing are the most [common complaints](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/02/23/fracking-is-dangerous-to-your-health-heres-why/#58056f65945f) of residents living near fracked wells
1.4.8.1.2. Pro: [An epidemiological study of more than 400,000 patients of Pennsylvania’s Geisinger clinic, done with Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, found a significant association between fracking and increases in mild, moderate and severe cases of asthma \(odds ratios 4.4 to 1.5\).](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/02/23/fracking-is-dangerous-to-your-health-heres-why/#58056f65945f)
1.4.8.2. Pro: Exposure to the chemicals used in fracking has been shown to decrease [sperm](https://www.marketplace.org/2017/11/15/sustainability/environmental-protection-agency-drilling-fracking-wells) count in mice.
1.4.8.3. Pro: Due to a number of [factors](https://www.psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/fracking-and-air-pollution.pdf), such as the lack of studies on fracking and unreleased information on the types of chemicals used, many scientists believe that the health effects from fracking are worse than we currently believe.
1.4.8.3.1. Pro: On an incomplete list, due to trade secrecy agreements, [75% of 632 chemicals](https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/fracking/pdfs/Colborn_2011_Natural_Gas_from_a_public_health_perspective.pdf) were found to pose a definite risk to human health.
1.4.8.4. Pro: [Toluene exposure has been shown to cause intellectual, psychomotor, and neuromuscular impairment at moderate concentrations \(80–150 ppm\).](https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2017-0008/reveh-2017-0008.xml?format=INT)
1.4.8.5. Pro: Fracking requires the mining of silica, which is used as an abrasive agent. This can [cause an increase in lung related diseases](https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/compelling-reasons-ban-fracking-that-will-blow-your-mind.php)
1.5. Con: An outright ban would rule out any potential future improved system that might be safe for the environment.
1.5.1. Con: Fracking delays the global economy's transition to renewable energy. This delay is likely to make the inevitable switch more costly and [volatile](https://www.thenation.com/article/americas-fossil-fuel-fever/).
1.5.1.1. Pro: Fracking is likely to have a [negative impact](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/01/120117-shale-gas-boom-impact-on-renewables/) on the development of green technologies, as shale gas will reduce the demand for alternative energy solutions and shale will continue to be cheaper than other green technologies.
1.5.1.1.1. Pro: It is important to continue to develop other green energy sources as it is[unclear how long](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/01/120117-shale-gas-boom-impact-on-renewables/) reliance on shale gas can be sustained.
1.5.1.1.2. Con: This issue could be resolved through legislation. We could prioritise \(ration\) gas obtained via fracking away from being used as a source of energy. It could then still be used for other purposes that are more important in the long run but rationed for conservation purposes.
1.5.1.1.2.1. Con: The US in particular is not very good at 'rationing by legislation'. See other instances such as helium \([independent.co.uk](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/why-the-world-is-running-out-of-helium-2059357.html) and more recently [nationalgeographic.com\)](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/08/news-helium-mri-superconducting-markets-reserve-technology/).
1.5.1.2. Pro: Governments have less of an incentive to look into alternative fuel sources if they are getting cheap oil due to fracking.
1.5.1.2.1. Con: Governments also have an incentive to explore environmentally sustainable policies as they become more of an [electoral issue](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/climate/climate-change-vote-midterms.html).
1.5.1.3. Con: Allowing more time to develop alternatives to fossil fuels will make the inevitable switch happen more smoothly, as fossil fuels gradually become uneconomical compared to their renewable competitors.
1.5.1.4. Con: This is essentially a weak premise. One might argues that cheapening the supply of Oil delays investment to replace Oil for energy production but fracking per-se does not cause the investment delays . Oil from fracking is only a small percentage and Middle Eastern cartel still controls overall pricing.
1.5.2. Pro: -> See 1.3.2.
1.5.3. Pro: Research into fracking would likely be harder if fracking itself was illegal.
1.5.3.1. Pro: There are currently significant [barriers](https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2210) to conducting research into illegal drugs.
1.5.4. Con: Fossil fuels are generally not seen as a viable energy source for the future so a potentially improved system in the future would likely be irrelevant at that point.
1.5.4.1. Pro: Fracking does not provide stable employment, as oil and gas will eventually [run out](https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Shale-Boom-Might-Not-Last-Long.html) making people unemployed.
1.5.4.2. Pro: As fossil fuels are [non-renewable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-renewable_resource), they'll become increasingly scarce with continued usage, making it an unsustainable source of energy in the long-run.
1.5.4.3. Con: We need oils for more than energy, in fact some [uses](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=41&t=6) will become more important.
1.5.5. Pro: Regulation could be improved to make fracking better, as has occurred in the [UK](https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-23723283/fracking-tim-yeo-on-uk-and-us-regulation-and-prices).
1.5.6. Con: Billions of dollars have to be spent on the development of new medicines before they are approved as safe to use, and yet this barrier to making profits does not deter pharmaceutical companies from making discoveries. Given that current methods of fracking can have a negative impact on public health, why should the oil & gas industry be any different? Even an outright ban could be lifted when the circumstances are right.
1.5.6.1. Con: The Pharma example highlights the circular arrangement between Commerce and Government. Universities are subsidised to research. Profit Companies then Develop \(at great cost\) then sell \(at great price\) into markets that are 'closed markets' by Governmental Regulations. This barrier to entry causes high prices anyway. However, with energy the opportunities for high prices are restricted by temporary over-capacity \(world, near future\).
1.5.7. Pro: The resources are in perfectly safe storage where they are, in the ground. Some time in the future these gasses and oils will be in very short supply but there will still be strategic needs, for plastics , mineral oils etc. Exploratory Fracking, to find out what could be possibly extracted, should be allowed now but extraction operations be deferred until strategic need has been shown. This could be decades away.
1.5.7.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.7.
1.6. Con: Fracking makes economic sense.
1.6.1. Pro: Fracking saves the United States [$180 billion](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/06/02/fracking-saves-consumers-180-billion-annually-on-gasoline/) on gasoline annually.
1.6.1.1. Pro: Cheaper gas prices means U.S. households can [heat their homes for less and enjoy stabler wholesale electricity prices](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/26/fracking-the-reality-the-risks-and-what-the-future-holds).
1.6.1.2. Pro: Fracking could be used in the short term to make money and provide gasoline while we develop better ways of energy production.
1.6.2. Con: -> See 1.5.1.
1.6.3. Con: Fracking is a worse economic decision than using renewable sources of energy.
1.6.3.1. Pro: The EU currently saves €30 billion by [producing](https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2014/05/29/europe-must-reduce-reliance-on-all-fossil-fuels-not-just-russias/#6e51d1765ade) its own renewable energy.
1.6.3.2. Pro: [Reports](https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/fracking-electricity-production-energy-shale-gas-extraction-sustainable-a8160661.html) have shown that wind and solar energy is a better investment for countries than fracking.
1.6.3.3. Pro: [Studies](https://www.dontfrackwa.com.au/2018/11/07/kimberley-clean-energy-roadmap-shows-renewables-cheaper-than-fracking/) have shown that towns would save money by switching to renewable energy sources.
1.6.4. Pro: Fracking [generates](https://www.texansfornaturalgas.com/report_fracking_funds_texas_schools) millions in tax revenue which funds important services such as education.
1.6.4.1. Pro: Due to fracking, North Dakota's state budget has a surplus, which it uses for [spending on schools and social services](https://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2012/05/21/fracking-is-midunderstood-its-the-key-to-energy-self-sufficiency/#12bb6fcb177d).
1.6.5. Pro: Fracking provides more money to households.
1.6.5.1. Pro: The average household in an area where fracking occurs is [$2000](https://www.forbes.com/sites/ucenergy/2018/02/20/fracking-has-its-costs-and-benefits-the-trick-is-balancing-them/#4a83c70f19b4) better off, even when taking health implications into consideration.
1.6.5.2. Pro: Due to fracking, the average household in the US saves over [$200](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2015/03/23/the-economic-benefits-of-fracking/) a year on cheaper gas prices.
1.6.5.2.1. Con: -> See 1.2.3.2.1.
1.6.5.3. Pro: Studies have shown that West South Central region of America \(Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas\) has gained [$432](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2015/03/23/the-economic-benefits-of-fracking/) per person in consumer benefits due to fracking.
1.6.5.4. Pro: On average, [counties](https://www.ft.com/content/cbee8072-c973-11e6-8f29-9445cac8966f) in the US with fracking production have household wages that are 8 per cent higher and house prices that are 6 per cent higher than in areas with less activity.
1.6.5.5. Con: Fracking is estimated to increase costs to households by [$960.](https://www.ft.com/content/cbee8072-c973-11e6-8f29-9445cac8966f)
1.6.5.6. Con: In the U.K., properties located within a one to five mile radius of fracking operations have to [pay higher insurance cost](https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/compelling-reasons-ban-fracking-that-will-blow-your-mind.php), making households' expenses higher.
1.6.5.7. Con: [Property values decline](https://www.ecowatch.com/how-fracking-decreases-property-value-1881781983.html) in areas of fracking.
1.6.6. Con: Fracking creates economic booms in rural areas which are unsustainable.
1.6.6.1. Pro: Sudden surges in employment and population in the fracking areas means that [construction companies struggle to build housing fast enough](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012915/how-has-fracking-helped-us-decrease-dependence-foreign-oil.asp) to keep up with the population growth.
1.6.6.2. Pro: -> See 1.5.4.1.
1.6.6.3. Pro: In the US, [local authorities have chosen to take on debt](https://energy.duke.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/5.%20A%20case%20study%20of%20the%20fiscal%20effects%20of%20Bakken%20shale%20development%20FINAL.pdf) in order to meet infrastructure needs associated with the fracking boom. If fracking declines in their region, they will be unlikely to be able to repay this debt or effectively use that infrastructure for other purposes.
1.6.6.4. Pro: As we have seen with the [decline of rural or small manufacturing towns in America](http://www.governing.com/commentary/gov-legacy-city-struggling-cities.html), it may be difficult for these communities to generate revenue if fracking ceases to occur.
1.6.6.4.1. Pro: A [study](https://energy.duke.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/5.%20A%20case%20study%20of%20the%20fiscal%20effects%20of%20Bakken%20shale%20development%20FINAL.pdf) completed on the Bakken region in North Dakota \(which has experience arguably the largest growth of fracking in the US\) showed all local governments and local industries have becoming heavily dependent on the fracking industry.
1.6.6.5. Pro: A significant influx of people into areas where fracking is occurring has left local governments unable to meet demands such as ["repairing roads, expanding water and wastewater infrastructure and ramping up emergency, fire, police and other services."](https://energy.duke.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/5.%20A%20case%20study%20of%20the%20fiscal%20effects%20of%20Bakken%20shale%20development%20FINAL.pdf)
1.6.6.6. Pro: Local communities can be fundamentally changed by the oil industry with trucks, noise pollution, dust, litter and crime coming to town. [This may cause unrest for local residents or cause them to move.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/dec/04/north-dakota-fracking-boom-family)
1.6.6.7. Con: Governments are aware that the fracking boom may not last and are developing projects to address future economic sustainability.
1.6.6.7.1. Pro: In the United States, the [Vision West project](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/vision-west-nd#section-overview) is helping to plan for the future economic sustainability of the 19 counties in North Dakota which are heavily dependent on oil and gas.
1.6.6.8. Con: It depends on how it is managed. It is unustainable if we rush headlong into cheap petrol and gas supplies for energy. Fracking can be good if we use the materials strategcally Note: a\) The supply of Oil is finite \(non-renewable\) b\) there are some uses for Oil and Gas that do not have current substitutes as easily as for energy.
1.6.7. Pro: Domestic energy production also mitigates the potentially negative effects of fluctuations in oil prices.
1.6.7.1. Pro: People can enjoy stable prices for oil and don't have to suffer sudden fluctuations and high rises in oil costs
1.6.7.2. Con: Due to the interconnected nature of global markets, oil and gas prices can still be [influenced](https://www.thenation.com/article/americas-fossil-fuel-fever/) by actors outside a specific country.
1.6.7.2.1. Pro: The crisis in Venezuela has been [responsible](https://www.ft.com/content/5815d0b8-2c7f-11e8-9b4b-bc4b9f08f381) for a global rise in oil prices.
1.6.7.2.2. Pro: The Saudi Arabian government has [complete control](https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/01/26/is-the-united-states-the-new-saudi-arabia/) over its oil industry allowing it to make industry decisions based on geopolitics. This can not occur in countries such as the US due to the large number of private firms in the industry who are only motivated by profit.
1.6.7.2.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.5.
1.6.7.3. Con: Domestic oil producers are often privately owned companies which sell oil or gas at international market values, leading states to still be vulnerable to fluctuations.
1.6.8. Con: So does the arms trade - that doesn't necessarily mean that the damages incurred from these actions justify the economic boost.
1.6.8.1. Pro: Both the arms trade and [fracking](https://theecologist.org/2017/apr/25/fracking-kills-newborn-babies-polluted-water-likely-cause) industry have resulted in otherwise avoidable deaths.
1.6.8.2. Con: It's not just a question of an 'economic boost' but whether people can have electricity or not, given other energy sources are not sufficient.
1.6.8.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.2.8.
1.6.9. Con: Actually the economics are marginal, especially when full safety regulations, compensation to neighbours and communities, and post extraction clean-up costs are included. [consciousnessofsheep.co.uk](http://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2018/03/20/why-i-focus-on-the-economics-of-fracking/)
1.6.10. Pro: Fracking leads to more jobs.
1.6.10.1. Pro: Many preliminary fracking licenses are around the city of [Manchester](http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14432401). As Manchester falls [behind](http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/high-unemployment-growing-homeless-population-10784305) the rest of the UK in terms of employment and homelessness this helps them.
1.6.10.1.1. Con: -> See 1.6.5.7.
1.6.10.2. Con: -> See 1.6.6.1.
1.6.10.3. Con: Fracking is a very dangerous job, and poses a huge number of serious risks.
1.6.10.3.1. Pro: Oil and gas drilling workers have [high fatality rates](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/02/17/fracking-and-what-new-epa-means-for-your-health/#4bacb2c338e1).
1.6.10.3.2. Pro: Due to the chemicals involved in fracking, the workers are at risk of developing a number of diseases and conditions.
1.6.10.3.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.8.1.
1.6.10.3.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.4.4.2.1.
1.6.10.3.2.3. Pro: -> See 1.4.8.2.
1.6.10.3.2.4. Pro: -> See 1.4.8.4.
1.6.10.3.2.5. Pro: -> See 1.4.1.4.
1.6.10.3.2.6. Pro: The [National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health \(NIOSH\)’s](https://www.osha.gov/dts/hazardalerts/hydraulic_frac_hazard_alert.pdf) field studies show that workers may be exposed to high levels of silica in the dust surrounding the work site, even if using respirators, which are often inadequate to compensate for the high levels of exposure.
1.6.10.3.2.6.1. Pro: Silica crystals can enter the lungs causing [breathing difficulties](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/02/17/fracking-and-what-new-epa-means-for-your-health/#4bacb2c338e1), which can lead to chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder \(COPD\) and lung cancers.
1.6.10.3.3. Con: There are risks associated with all lines of work, and those working in the fracking industry opt in to those serious risks when they opt in to the industry.
1.6.10.3.3.1. Con: [This legislation](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2017/02/17/fracking-and-what-new-epa-means-for-your-health/#4bacb2c338e1) means that fracking companies don’t need to release all information regarding harmful chemicals used, meaning workers can’t meaningfully consent into the risks due to their limited information.
1.6.10.3.4. Con: [Numerous](https://www.power-technology.com/features/most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-energy-sector/) jobs in the energy sector are dangerous.
1.6.10.4. Pro: Each million dollars of new oil and gas production is [associated](https://voxeu.org/article/local-economy-impact-fracking) with a $66,000 increase in wage income and 0.78 new jobs within the county.
1.6.10.5. Pro: [Studies](https://voxeu.org/article/local-economy-impact-fracking) have shown that on average 36% of fracking royalties stay within local areas, boosting the economies of these communities.
1.6.10.6. Pro: Reports suggest fracking could create up to [64,000](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10783708/Fracking-could-generate-33bn-and-64000-jobs-for-UK.html) jobs within the UK.
1.6.10.7. Pro: Fracking also provides [countless jobs](https://www.aol.com/2012/10/02/is-fracking-a-solution-to-the-jobs-crisis-separating-facts-from/) in sectors needed to aid fracking companies such as transportation, law and hospitality.
1.6.10.7.1. Con: Many jobs that have been claimed to be created by [fracking](https://theconversation.com/the-false-promise-of-fracking-and-local-jobs-36459) are actually jobs in sectors independent of the fracking industry.
1.6.10.7.1.1. Pro: It doesn't matter if the jobs are directly related to fracking. If fracking did not occur in those areas, the supporting jobs would not exist.
1.6.10.8. Con: Fracking does not provide stable employment.
1.6.10.8.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.4.1.
1.6.10.8.2. Con: Circumstances under which fracking provides stable employment are easy to imagine
1.6.10.8.2.1. Pro: If one of two things happen then stable employment can be created. 1\) Oil from fracking is part of a low-energy cost subsidy to manufacturing industry . 2\) The oil extracted is directed towards some more far-reaching industry - Petrochemicals and beyond. See Ineos in Scotland or look back to how clean water and cheap energy allowed cotton mills to lead to textile mills and fashions industries.
1.6.10.8.2.1.1. Con: Using oil for energy is at best mid-term strategy, probably short-term
1.6.10.8.3. Pro: The jobs created by fracking might be unstable and dependant on international prices of oil and gas
1.6.10.9. Pro: In the US, more than [700.000 jobs](https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fracking-employment-study-idUSL8N13159X20151106) have been added due to fracking between 2002 and 2015.
1.6.10.9.1. Pro: Due to the large fracking industry in North Dakota, the state has the [lowest unemployment rate of any state in the U.S](https://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2012/05/21/fracking-is-midunderstood-its-the-key-to-energy-self-sufficiency/#12bb6fcb177d).
1.6.10.9.2. Con: Since 2016 the fracking industry has experienced [substantial innovation](https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/current-oil-prices-create-opportunities) including the development of more efficient exploration methods, and onsite automation systems which reduces the need for manual labourers and reduces the number of jobs created.
1.6.10.9.2.1. Pro: [100,000 workers](https://ourworld.unu.edu/en/current-oil-prices-create-opportunities) globally were made redundant in 2015 because of automation in the fracking industry.
1.6.10.10. Pro: Undeniably there are jobs in the extraction and remediation. Whatever is done with the Oil reserves extracted \(preferably NOT energy\) there are jobs to be had in the further processing and manufacturing using the resultant materials. Some of this is High Value \(e.g. Medical products\).
1.6.10.11. Con: The amount of jobs it create might be low compared to the required investment fracking needs in order to be pursued
1.6.10.11.1. Pro: While fracking currently employs more than [1.7 million](https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/us-chamber%E2%80%99s-fracking-job-boom-behind-numbers) people in the United States, the costs for repairing damage caused by fracking is estimated to be [billions of dollars.](https://environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/exp/reports/costs_of_fracking.html)
1.6.10.12. Con: Renewable energy installation also leads to more jobs.
1.6.10.12.1. Pro: Sustainable energy employs [over 800,000 people](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26052017/infographic-renewable-energy-jobs-worldwide-solar-wind-trump); this number is rising further. More than twice the amount are employed by wind power generation then in coal.
1.7. Con: All sources of Oil and Gas have some environmental consequences and risks: from blowouts that can affect a whole coastline to pipeline leaks that affect a previously unspoiled locality. For as long as we continue to need these resources the Government has a responsibility to tightly regulate 'all' sources of them to achieve near-zero risk. The cost consequences would be more tightly focused than any blanket ban.
1.8. Con: Fracking at home reduces the dependence on overseas producers of oil and gas.
1.8.1. Pro: Saudi Arabia is not [fearful](https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/23/is-saudi-arabia-trying-to-cripple-american-fracking-oil-iran/) of the US becoming hostile as it has significant enough reserves that the US is not a competitive threat.
1.8.2. Pro: Reliance on fossil fuel imports from other states can leave countries vulnerable.
1.8.2.1. Pro: When tensions escalated between Ukraine and Russia, Russia [turned off](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/world/europe/07gazprom.html) its natural gas pipeline to the Europe, greatly affecting the supply and cost of gas.
1.8.2.2. Con: -> See 1.6.7.2.
1.8.3. Pro: OPEC countries have [historically colluded](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/01/how-frackers-beat-opec/508760/) to ensure that the global oil supply has remained capped so prices remain high. However production of oil from other sources prevents OPEC from keeping prices too high.
1.8.3.1. Con: US fracking is unlikely to break OPEC's influence over oil prices given that OPEC has a competitive advance: they can produce oil at [about one third](http://graphics.wsj.com/oil-barrel-breakdown/) of the cost of U.S. shale.
1.8.3.2. Con: Higher oil prices can encourage innovation in other energy dependent fields such as the [automotive industry](https://venturebeat.com/2018/03/29/these-3-technologies-are-about-to-revolutionize-the-auto-industry/).
1.8.4. Con: Some states, such as England, are unable to produce enough gas from fracking to [impact the price or their dependency on overseas oil](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/15/fracking-in-uk-what-is-it-and-why-is-it-controversial).
1.8.4.1. Pro: A report by the UK Energy Research Centre noted that significant shale gas production in the UK was [unlikely to get underway until next decade and would not reproduce the type of energy self-sufficiency](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/11/shale-gas-unlikely-to-make-the-uk-energy-self-sufficient-report-says) that occurred in America.
1.8.5. Pro: [Energy security](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_security) is an important geopolitical concern for many countries.
1.8.5.1. Pro: The EU is currently pursing the goal of an [energy union](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/energy/bloc-1.html) to reduce its reliance on states such as [Russia](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/energy/bloc-2c.html) for energy sources.
1.8.5.2. Pro: One of the US' [main goals](https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2018/04/15/u-s-energy-security-begins-at-home/#bef8b9a5d7ce) in recent years has been to increase its energy security.
1.8.5.2.1. Con: Many [experts](https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorensteffy/2014/02/28/why-energy-independence-is-the-wrong-goal-for-the-u-s/#5d8dceb868aa) believe that it will be highly unlikely that the US will ever have full energy security.
1.8.6. Pro: -> See 1.6.7.
1.8.7. Con: Domestic energy production isn't exclusive to fracking.
1.8.7.1. Con: In countries like the US, a [majority of domestic energy production](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home#tab3) comes from natural gas and petroleum released from fracking.
1.8.7.1.1. Con: -> See 1.2.10.1.
1.8.7.2. Pro: -> See 1.2.10.
1.8.7.3. Pro: Nuclear power generation is a [common form](http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx) of power across developed nations, and often is a major component of power generation.
1.8.7.4. Pro: [Clean coal generation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology) produces drastically less emissions then traditional coal generation and may be [drastically more environmentally and economically stable than](https://www.livescience.com/52715-natural-gas-not-as-clean-as-people-think.html) natural gas.
1.8.8. Pro: Oil can be used for a [variety of purposes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil), from plastics for hips to ships to chemicals for 3D printing, medical manufacturing, etc. - and not just for powering cars \(or as a source of energy in general\). The ability to acquire it locally, whether by fracking or inland drilling, rather than ship halfway round the world is good.
1.8.9. Con: Dependence on overseas producers offers a market of importers which allows the government to incentivize competition.
1.8.10. Con: Dependence of energy production on overseas producers can stimulate local initiative and innovation to reduce dependency on oil.
1.8.10.1. Pro: Innovation can be linked to [competition](https://www.ohe.org/publications/competition-through-innovation-innovation-through-competition) causing a need for companies to differentiate themselves in the market.
1.8.10.2. Pro: The rise of the fracking industry in the United States has reduced [dependency](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/22/how-the-fracking-revolution-broke-opecs-hold-on-oil-prices/#7213b56048ef) on oil from Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq and Iran.
1.8.10.3. Pro: -> See 1.8.3.2.
1.8.10.4. Con: Offloading our energy production on overseas producers negates the effects of local initiatives since our demand for oil will be shifted abroad.